Dr. Tahseen Mahmood Aslam looks at a sensitive issue
Pakistan and Decentralisation – Pakistan faces acute difficulty with the concept and practice of decentralisation as the domineering stakeholders of the state do not agree with it. As a country that has been raised a militaristic entity the powerful decision makers desperately cling to centralisation that borders practically on overcentralisation that has badly harmed nation cohesion and harmony. They consider that decentralising the structure of the state is a recipe for disaster as they fear losing decisive authority that they enjoy since decades. The centralisation prevalent Pakistan is indeed spread over to almost all areas of national life that has so far inhibited socio-political development. The result is the current economic impasse that has put the economy of the country on the perilous way with a full- fledged disaster staring the state in face. The paranoia and its associated difficulties with which the arbitrary forces view the process of decentralisation in the country has completely defaced the positive and very rewarding results of decentralisation.
In their state of paranoia, the pro-centralisation groups of the country completely neglect the positive side of decentralisation. The concept refers to the allocation of power in socio-political and economic circles that flows from the higher to the lower-level structure. What actually happens is that in an existing structure in which smaller or peripheral units have effective powers or a process of structural change imply a shift of power from the centre to these units. The structure concerned can be a network differentiated into a centre and a periphery, a hierarchical organisation internally differentiated into sectors or subdivisions or a territorial organisation differentiated into levels of geographical space. In political context, decentralisation usually refers to multilevel structures of government or administration and devolves power to elect or denominate policymakers of legislative or administrative competences or of fiscal resources from higher to lower levels.
It is understood that given interdependencies between levels, decentralisation is to be regarded as a relational concept and effects of policies made by lower-level units depend on the power of the centre and shifts of power toward lower levels usually affect the degree of centralisation or decentralisation, while only major reforms change the character of a political system such as transforming a unitary into a federal system that Pakistan theoretically practices. In its functional context, decentralisation affects governance and democratic legitimacy and it concerns not only the multilevel governance policies but also affects the normative policies of the state structure. Pakistani state has a historical tendency to take centralised course of action to manage conflicts of competing local elites and social groups. The intensity and subjectivity through which the policy of centralisation was pursued in Pakistan were often thwarted by countervailing powers from below.
Interestingly, the process of decentralisation gained tremendous found in the last century and was construed to be solution to many governance issues and the trend witnessed the decentralisation gaining ground in many developed states. However, at the same time, decentralisation became a kind of paradigm for governance in developing countries yet despite its proved efficacy in practice the decision making apparatus tried everything to impede the process. It is quite obvious that the practice goes hand in hand with a centralised, bureaucratic state. The strong state apparatus still adamantly holds that decentralisation does not improve democracy but actually creates a situation of chaos. They consider it unwise to let the authority of the state devolve to lower echelons and they believed that these echelons are not competent enough and would certainly prove disastrous for the state.
The centralisation forces conveniently paper over the advantages of decentralisation that has proved very successful in the developed world. Prudent policy makers the world over praise decentralisation as a device to avoid a concentration of power in a government and this is precisely the reason that is often cited for socio-economic instability in Pakistan. Decentralisation emphasises that powers should be divided not only between executive, legislative, and judiciary but also between central and regional or local levels. Although the general argument is convincing it leaves open the question of which powers should be centralised and which should be decentralised. Additionally, decentralisation can divide powers for legislation, as is typical in a federal state, or it can refer to executive powers while legislation remains to the centre as is often the case in unitary states. Though decentralising process is quite complex but once it is put in practice then it is not only difficult to reverse but it is also difficult to measure.
The complexities of any form of governance can easily be enunciated as in its roots lies the concept and exercise of power that is multidimensional in context as it can be based on formal competences, on effective capacities to make or impede decisions, on support by electors/voters or influential associations or on fiscal resources. Moreover, the degree of centralisation and decentralisation can vary between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government. The party system reflecting the relations between government and society may also matter when measuring decentralisation and may differ from other institutional dimension of multilevel government. In this context, measuring the degree of decentralisation could be done through the power relations between levels of government. Decentralisation is however considered very rewarding when the power of regional or local governments is able to decide on their affairs autonomously. But usually central governments can intervene in lower-level policy making by different means such as regulation, supervision, incentives or capacity building that is often find taking place in Pakistan whereas on the other hand, decentralised authorities may be able to evade central control.
It is usually observed that decentralisation seems to constitute a general trend in government and it is now not only confined to the developed countries but is fast gaining currency in the developing world. It is gaining popularity because it brings again a very noticeable change in public policies particularly in ensuring the shift from distributive welfare policies to the provision of services. It is also pointed out that the process of democratisation also supports decentralisation. It is also noticed that rigidly centralised governance systems are now compelled to respond to pressure from new nationalist or regionalist movements demanding political autonomy. In addition, economic globalisation has reduced the effects of national policies to support firms and increased the relevance of regional and local responsibilities for infrastructure and administrative services.
The current issues faced by the centralised structures such as Pakistan has also resulted in reallocation of power to lower levels and doing that are trying to decentralise raise conflicts between central, regional and local governments. In a decentralised governance system it is one of the primary characteristics that it remains closer to the people ensuring that communication between citizens and their representatives should be more effective and individual preferences should have better chances to be considered in political decisions. Moreover, decentralisation is said to reflect plurality and regional differentiation of societal interests and they are mostly considered as a device against dictatorship either of autocrats or of majorities. Most decisively, decentralisation is extremely beneficial to economic development as it stipulates that it fosters efficiency of policy making along with providing citizens an opportunity to choose between alternative supplies of public goods or services provided by lower level governments improving satisfaction level of the people. The Weekender
Pakistan And Decentralisation
ByDr. Tahseen Mahmood Aslam
Designation: is an educationist with wide experience
Dated
June 17, 2023
Dr. Tahseen Mahmood Aslam looks at a sensitive issue
Pakistan and Decentralisation – Pakistan faces acute difficulty with the concept and practice of decentralisation as the domineering stakeholders of the state do not agree with it. As a country that has been raised a militaristic entity the powerful decision makers desperately cling to centralisation that borders practically on overcentralisation that has badly harmed nation cohesion and harmony. They consider that decentralising the structure of the state is a recipe for disaster as they fear losing decisive authority that they enjoy since decades. The centralisation prevalent Pakistan is indeed spread over to almost all areas of national life that has so far inhibited socio-political development. The result is the current economic impasse that has put the economy of the country on the perilous way with a full- fledged disaster staring the state in face. The paranoia and its associated difficulties with which the arbitrary forces view the process of decentralisation in the country has completely defaced the positive and very rewarding results of decentralisation.
In their state of paranoia, the pro-centralisation groups of the country completely neglect the positive side of decentralisation. The concept refers to the allocation of power in socio-political and economic circles that flows from the higher to the lower-level structure. What actually happens is that in an existing structure in which smaller or peripheral units have effective powers or a process of structural change imply a shift of power from the centre to these units. The structure concerned can be a network differentiated into a centre and a periphery, a hierarchical organisation internally differentiated into sectors or subdivisions or a territorial organisation differentiated into levels of geographical space. In political context, decentralisation usually refers to multilevel structures of government or administration and devolves power to elect or denominate policymakers of legislative or administrative competences or of fiscal resources from higher to lower levels.
It is understood that given interdependencies between levels, decentralisation is to be regarded as a relational concept and effects of policies made by lower-level units depend on the power of the centre and shifts of power toward lower levels usually affect the degree of centralisation or decentralisation, while only major reforms change the character of a political system such as transforming a unitary into a federal system that Pakistan theoretically practices. In its functional context, decentralisation affects governance and democratic legitimacy and it concerns not only the multilevel governance policies but also affects the normative policies of the state structure. Pakistani state has a historical tendency to take centralised course of action to manage conflicts of competing local elites and social groups. The intensity and subjectivity through which the policy of centralisation was pursued in Pakistan were often thwarted by countervailing powers from below.
Interestingly, the process of decentralisation gained tremendous found in the last century and was construed to be solution to many governance issues and the trend witnessed the decentralisation gaining ground in many developed states. However, at the same time, decentralisation became a kind of paradigm for governance in developing countries yet despite its proved efficacy in practice the decision making apparatus tried everything to impede the process. It is quite obvious that the practice goes hand in hand with a centralised, bureaucratic state. The strong state apparatus still adamantly holds that decentralisation does not improve democracy but actually creates a situation of chaos. They consider it unwise to let the authority of the state devolve to lower echelons and they believed that these echelons are not competent enough and would certainly prove disastrous for the state.
The centralisation forces conveniently paper over the advantages of decentralisation that has proved very successful in the developed world. Prudent policy makers the world over praise decentralisation as a device to avoid a concentration of power in a government and this is precisely the reason that is often cited for socio-economic instability in Pakistan. Decentralisation emphasises that powers should be divided not only between executive, legislative, and judiciary but also between central and regional or local levels. Although the general argument is convincing it leaves open the question of which powers should be centralised and which should be decentralised. Additionally, decentralisation can divide powers for legislation, as is typical in a federal state, or it can refer to executive powers while legislation remains to the centre as is often the case in unitary states. Though decentralising process is quite complex but once it is put in practice then it is not only difficult to reverse but it is also difficult to measure.
The complexities of any form of governance can easily be enunciated as in its roots lies the concept and exercise of power that is multidimensional in context as it can be based on formal competences, on effective capacities to make or impede decisions, on support by electors/voters or influential associations or on fiscal resources. Moreover, the degree of centralisation and decentralisation can vary between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government. The party system reflecting the relations between government and society may also matter when measuring decentralisation and may differ from other institutional dimension of multilevel government. In this context, measuring the degree of decentralisation could be done through the power relations between levels of government. Decentralisation is however considered very rewarding when the power of regional or local governments is able to decide on their affairs autonomously. But usually central governments can intervene in lower-level policy making by different means such as regulation, supervision, incentives or capacity building that is often find taking place in Pakistan whereas on the other hand, decentralised authorities may be able to evade central control.
It is usually observed that decentralisation seems to constitute a general trend in government and it is now not only confined to the developed countries but is fast gaining currency in the developing world. It is gaining popularity because it brings again a very noticeable change in public policies particularly in ensuring the shift from distributive welfare policies to the provision of services. It is also pointed out that the process of democratisation also supports decentralisation. It is also noticed that rigidly centralised governance systems are now compelled to respond to pressure from new nationalist or regionalist movements demanding political autonomy. In addition, economic globalisation has reduced the effects of national policies to support firms and increased the relevance of regional and local responsibilities for infrastructure and administrative services.
The current issues faced by the centralised structures such as Pakistan has also resulted in reallocation of power to lower levels and doing that are trying to decentralise raise conflicts between central, regional and local governments. In a decentralised governance system it is one of the primary characteristics that it remains closer to the people ensuring that communication between citizens and their representatives should be more effective and individual preferences should have better chances to be considered in political decisions. Moreover, decentralisation is said to reflect plurality and regional differentiation of societal interests and they are mostly considered as a device against dictatorship either of autocrats or of majorities. Most decisively, decentralisation is extremely beneficial to economic development as it stipulates that it fosters efficiency of policy making along with providing citizens an opportunity to choose between alternative supplies of public goods or services provided by lower level governments improving satisfaction level of the people. The Weekender
Share
Get Newsletters